The Wrong Lesson

Late last week, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an outspoken Christian, spoke during a prayer breakfast in Ocean City, Md. Boykin discussed his personal spirituality and how it was interwoven throughout his life and career. Under normal circumstances, a retired war horse addressing a group of citizens in a small resort city attracts less attention than the surf report in a retirement community. But the left-wing hate group People for the American Way and the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations decided to make Boykin’s speech the event of the offseason.

Following the hubbub, Boykin “has decided to withdraw speaking at West Point’s National Prayer Breakfast” on Feb. 8, according to a statement issued by the U.S. Military Academy. Boykin’s withdrawal followed a round of complaints from PFAW, CAIR and others. A statement by CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad read:

We welcome Mr. Boykin’s withdrawal from this event and hope that the speaker who replaces him will offer cadets a spiritual message that promotes tolerance and mutual understanding.

When did tolerance and understanding earn a place in CAIR’s belief system? CAIR’s founders are the aforementioned Awad and Omar Ahmad, both former officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine. In his book Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, former FBI analyst and U.S. Treasury Department intelligence official Mathew Levitt described IAP as “intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership.” Let’s not sugarcoat it, people. CAIR is an Islamic terrorist public relations firm.

Some of you will read this and wonder why I didn’t discuss Mitt Romney’s triumph in Florida’s RINO-match of a primary or something equally as politically immediate. I will respond by warning you not to dismiss tales of this nature. A retired veteran was denied an opportunity to share fellowship with the cadets at West Point because of pressure brought by fringe liberals with a decided left-wing agenda and ties to terrorist groups. This is precisely the sort of camouflaged incrementalism that weakens the Nation from the roots up. What CAIR and its accomplices accomplished in pressuring West Point to send Boykin packing is a step toward policy. West Point isn’t some resort town; it’s one of the places from which the future leaders of our armed forces — men and women like Boykin — will be culled. What lessons will those future leaders learn when extremist groups can successfully censor the opinions of the leaders who came before them? More importantly, what lessons will they miss?

It is true that Boykin holds some fairly strong opinions about Islamofascists. That ought to surprise no one since his career sometimes pitted him against Islamofascists. Furthermore, Boykin’s opinions are less than shocking, considering the fact that Islamofascists hardly try to hide their feelings about him (and the rest of us). But to punish Boykin at the behest of vermin like CAIR and PFAW is the wrong message from the wrong people at the wrong time.

The Fast And The Spurious VI: The Never-Ending Story

Perhaps they thought they would get away with it. After all, President Barack Obama and his henchmen have secured get-out-of-jail-free cards for every other crime against the people, the Constitution and common decency since Obama was just an ex-“community organizer” with stars in his eyes and a dog-eared copy of “Rules for Radicals” in his pocket.

Perhaps they thought that deliberately hiding the documentation of their latest misadventure with a carefully timed Friday night document dump would work, and that a Nation that prefers its politics served fresh Monday through Friday would simply miss the new revelations in the fog of grill smoke and the din of peewee hockey games.

Whatever Obama and his henchmen thought, they were wrong.

This past Friday evening, Obama’s cleaning service cleared out a few more file cabinets. Included in the latest peculiarly timed document dump was an email chain extending to the office of Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the murder of Border Agent Brian Terry. The electronic exchange began just after midnight the day after Terry was shot with an alert to the former U.S. Attorney and now waiting-for-his-guest-spot-on-MSNBC and OFF point man Dennis Burke:

On December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word] unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being shot.

That message — which Burke forwarded to Holder’s chief of staff Monty Wilkinson — was followed shortly after by another: “Our agent has passed away.” Wilkinson responded: “Tragic. I’ve alerted the AG…”

“Tragic. I’ve alerted the AG…” Wilkinson apprised Holder of the murder of Brian Terry on Dec. 15, 2010, six months before Holder testified under oath in front of Congress that he had known about OFF for only a “few weeks.” He later retracted that testimony in front of the Senate. Holder lied, and then he lied about lying. And even that was a lie.

As if that weren’t appalling enough, a later message from Burke to Wilkinson read:

The guns found in the desert near the murder (sic) BP officer… were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.

The latter messages prove either that Holder perjured himself in front of Congress on no fewer than two occasions or that describing him as “stupendously incompetent” is an astounding understatement. Should the former be the case, the logical progression leads to two questions:

1. Why?
2. Who told him to do it?

Given the performance of the Obama Administration so far, the answers to both are laughably obvious — and both involve the sort of nefarious deeds unseen in the White House since President Richard Nixon’s “plumbers” checked into the Watergate.

We may fairly presume that Obama will continue to behave as if the scandal surrounding OFF is, as Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) claimed, a racist attempt to smear Obama and Holder. But Friday night’s undercover document dump relegates that clichéd reaction to the same intellectual dustbin containing Johnson’s musings on the buoyancy of Guam.

The refusal of the self-described “most transparent administration in history” to acknowledge, much less address, Holder and his involvement with OFF is borderline criminal. The attempts to hide documentation revealing the extent of Holder’s (and by extension, Obama’s) mendacity are grounds for a great deal more than bad polling numbers. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached — and ultimately disbarred — for perjury, and he was lying only about an overweight intern. It’s time for Obama and his little buddy Holder to face justice — justice of their own making.

The Global Warning On Global Warming

Some time ago, I described the pseudo-scientific theory of so-called “global warming” as “the phrenology of the modern age.” In light of the latest avalanche of actual scientific evidence, it would appear I was actually being a bit on the generous side. After all, while practitioners of phrenology might have been as far off the mark as an Al Gore slide show, at least they were trying to help someone else. The only beneficiaries of the global warming hoax are the hoaxsters themselves. While that means only that global warming is no different than virtually every other aspect of liberalism, it also means that every aspect of American society is threatened.

The latest crack in global warming’s crumbling wall appeared last week in the United Kingdom with a quiet acknowledgement by the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia that not only is the Earth not warming, the oven is off and the pilot light is out. Moreover, data collected from more than 30,000 measuring stations and released last week have put the deep freeze on global warming, instead indicating that the temperature trend pointed to by global warmists peaked in 1997.

Additionally, the current solar cycle has reached its maximum output and is, therefore, headed into what scientists call “Cycle 25,” which researchers at NASA and the University of Arizona have declared will be much weaker than solar cycles over the past century. In fact, the latest Met Office research predicts that Cycle 25 and subsequent 11-year solar cycles will likely approach the “Dalton minimum” for solar output, matching the solar slump which lowered Europe’s mean temperatures by 2 degrees centigrade during the 18th and 19th centuries. Some scientists predict solar energy could bottom out even further, matching the “Maunder minimum” — the coolest period of the “Little Ice Age” — which held the planet in its chilly grip from the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries.

According to leading observers from respected institutions, the failure of global warmists to credit the sun for its role in global temperature swings nearly obviates the entire global warming industry. Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D., of Duke University notes:

If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.

It’s fair to presume that he’s already omitting global warmists from the “scientific community” given the remote likelihood that they will abandon the scam which has kept them in clover since the early 1970s, when the same climactic phrenologists who roar about global warming now were shrieking about global cooling.

These latest revelations about the myriad flaws and scientific method violations that mark the progression of the global warming theories combine with the well-established fact that global warmists have never employed more than anecdotal evidence that the basis of their fearmongering even exists to produce what ought to be a final curtain for global warming and the entire so-called “climate change” industry.

And yet, I have a theory — based on decades’ worth of firsthand observation — that neither global warming nor the industry its proponents spawned will be headed for the booth next to the tinfoil-hat salesmen at the next Flat Earth Society conference. Despite the altruistic claims of leading global warmists from Gore to the Headlands Institute eggheads, they’re highly unlikely to abandon their cause for the same two reasons nanny-staters have been pressing their jackboots down upon the necks of people across the world since time immemorial:

  1. Money.
  2. Power.

Consider Obama’s continued devotion to so-called “green jobs” boondoggles, despite the Brobdingnagian barrelsful of taxpayer cash that they absorb without producing any quantifiable benefit. Solyndra, LightSquared and Ener1 (which flatlined right after Obama’s State of the Union address last week) have combined to cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in unrecoverable funds. All of them are fiscal disasters, yet Obama swore during the same address to continue to shovel our money into their gaping maws. In some cases, the output of these “green” ventures is dangerous: What’s the total amount of greenhouse outgassing produced by a burning Chevy Volt?

Gore sells books and video copies of his Oscar-winning slide show. He also lives like a pharaoh. Outside the pile of money left behind by his tobacco-baron father, Gore’s lavish lifestyle is funded almost entirely by his exploitation of global warming fear. And he’s hardly alone. In “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” an opinion piece that appeared in The Wall Street Journal last week, 16 scientists noted:

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.

The column also noted the striking similarities between the global warmists’ method of enforcing their dogma with retribution and even banishment and the intellectual dark ages of the Soviet Union, in which anyone who opposed Trofim Lysenko’s ludicrously medieval scientific theories was stripped of prestige, imprisoned and even killed.

To be fair, the world could probably benefit from a reduction in the population of arrogant pseudo-intellectual academics. And it almost goes without saying that anything that cuts the odds that Gore might show up in your town (flying a private jet, of course) to make you and your neighbors sit through one of his monotonous lectures on bumper-sticker science is — well — good. But global warmists have infiltrated virtually every aspect of public life. They are turning once-respectable universities into black holes of meaningful thought. They drain billions of dollars from the Treasury in pure cash and then drain millions of dollars more in meaningless regulations that have no effect on the jungles, but crush industrial output. They create idiotic bureaucratic boondoggles (like the Kyoto Protocol) that ripple through the global economic strata, hiking prices and ruining lives.

The food we eat, the fuel we need and the items we require (incandescent light bulbs, anyone?) are all more expensive, more scarce and more needlessly regulated because liberals like Obama recognize the value of fear over reason and the value of lockstep-marching minions who act without question.

Scientists ought to be consumed with the search for facts. As last week’s news — along with decades of actual data — proves, one fact is clear: Global warming hasn’t reduced our quality of life; global warmists have.

Sorry State Of The Union

My fellow Americans:

What an honor to be standing above you this evening. I mean for you, of course. Tonight, you mark the third anniversary of my ascent. With your continued obedience, it will not be my last. In fact, if all my plans for you come to fruition, I figure I’ve got at least 30 more of these to go.

I would like to first acknowledge some noteworthies. Seated behind me is the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. Hey, Joe. Joe. Joe. Joe, put down the sippy cup! Did you remember to go before we started?

Seated next to Vice President Biden is Speaker of the House John “The Man with the Tan” Boehner. Eventually, I’ll be able to book you a spot where you will really sport a savage tan. The Guantanamo Bay Spa? Bring your sand wedge, buddy.

And where’s my Michelle? Heck, you can’t miss her. Get moving, right to the Taco Bell! What? I figure since we already use two of everything else: limos, Air Force jets and vacations, we might as well use both bedrooms, right? That’s a nice dress, honey. Which one of your taxpayer-funded, take-along-a-few-dozen-of-your-best-friends-and-live-it-up-like-Oprah trips did you pick that one up on? Are those diamonds? Isn’t being rich awesome?

Where’s my other girl? Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi! Hey, Nancy, why so surprised? Oh, um, right. Awkward. But seriously, what a job she did laying the groundwork for my invasi — er — election! How many people watching this even remember that the House approval ratings under Nancy’s Speakership were as crappy as they are now? Oh, right. We suppressed that, didn’t we? Nancy, of all the duplicitous, multimillionaire hypocrites at the top of the liberal food chain, you’re definitely one.

And there’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Harry, you can put Nancy’s purse down when you’re in chambers, pal. How long has it been since you and your fellow Senate Democrats have even offered a budget? I think I was still helping ACORN fill out absentee ballots the last time.

Down to my left, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Guys, I know I ran on an anti-war platform, but no one told me blowing stuff up is so awesome! Did you see that resurgence of Gadhafi loyalists in Libya? Come by the Situation Room tomorrow. We’re going to continue the war we were never fighting to begin with over there. Grab some of the boys I deployed to Uganda without telling anyone. And we need to go over our plan for the invasion of Iran, toward which we are totally not ramping.

Down in front: the Supreme Court of the United States, the last line of defense of the Constitution — whatever the hell that is. Keep whispering, Justices Thomas and Alito. Attorney General Eric Holder needs to see you after the speech tonight, boys.

And where’s Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor? Hey, Mitch: I’ve decided to declare you in session. Now, you’re not. Now, you are. Now, you’re not. Ha-ha-ha! Don’t you glare at me. Ask Senator Rand Paul what happens to prominent opposition politicians who hassle me. Dr. Jellyfinger to the House Chamber, stat!

Up in the gallery: the corporate media. Without your willing complicity, this would be a whole lot more difficult. “Any criticism of Obama is code for racism.” That’s brilliant. And you conservative commentators? Four words: National Defense Authorization Act. Four more: indefinite detention without trial. You feeling me?

As for the State of the Union: I have moved us from two shooting wars to 2½. If the timing works, Iran will be next. The economy is in the toilet, and I intend to close the lid and nail it shut. We’re going to beg, borrow and steal whatever we need to push pet projects like Solyndra and cover cronies like Jeff Immelt when he sends jobs overseas. More Americans than ever are on government assistance; and if I have anything to do with it, we’re going to make that a clean 100 percent. Meanwhile, most of my “achievements” have forced us to run up debt like a second wife on Rodeo Drive. Don’t worry, though. We’ll bill your grandchildren.

To liberals watching me tonight: Keep it up, and we’ll put you on the top of the approval list for one of GM’s combustible golf carts. To the non-liberals: Pay no attention to the Homeland Security strike team outside your front door.

Good night and Alla — er — God bless me!

–Ben Crystal

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Convention

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, fresh from his win — er, loss — er, tie — with Rick Santorum in Iowa, dropped the proverbial house on the field in his part-time home State of New Hampshire. Following his Granite State triumph, Romney rolled into South Carolina wearing his new title of “presumptive nominee.”

Then, the Romney Express missed the curve and slammed face-first into the wall at full speed. Normally, conservatives would cheer the defeat of the only-marginally-better-than-Barack-Obama Romney. Unfortunately, normal didn’t make the trip to the Palmetto State. Instead of a candidate who can untangle America from the Gordian knots of Obama’s hyper-liberal Administration, South Carolinians handed their delegates to Newt Gingrich. You’ll pardon me if I seem less than enthused.

The news gets worse. Gingrich’s beat down of his rivals touched off a tsunami of second-guessing among the GOP establishment. Now, a party that was ready to hand the crown and scepter to Romney has skipped the off-ramp and accelerated down Unnecessarily Protracted and Bloody Nomination Fight Freeway. With Florida’s cache of delegates looming on the horizon, ex-Sunshine State Governor Jeb Bush has announced that he will reserve his endorsement. Certainly, Bush is as much a bellwether for the neocon wing of the Republican Party as anyone outside a certain Crawford, Texas, ranch. So the Republican candidates will spend months and millions of dollars going toe-to-toe while Obama waits, counting his multimillionaire cronies’ cash and further crushing the Nation’s hopes.

To add insult to injury, Gingrich led a field which included Romney in second and Santorum in third. Congressman Ron Paul, who remains the only candidate unblemished by political gamesmanship, Obamacare-type governmental intrusions, ties with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, million-dollar dances with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or worse, could manage only a fourth-place showing.

It strikes me that the GOP has forgotten the lesson the voters issued in 2010. Americans did everything short of handing pink slips to the entire Democratic Party. Had Obama faced re-election in November 2010, he would have been back to “community organizing” by January 2011. I am as mystified by the idea of an incremental return to mediocrity as I am by the idea that Obama’s ratings are any higher than those of MSNBC’s nightly freak show. Gingrich, Romney and Santorum to win, place and show in South Carolina? Need I remind anyone of liberty’s lost year of 2008? Should someone drag John McCain back into the ring?

The lone positive postcard from the Palmetto State is the apparent reluctance of Republican voters nationwide to simply hand the Oval Office keys to the latest RINO, to push his way to the front of the herd. Gingrich may have won a resounding victory in South Carolina, but he’s a far cry from the promised land. A Romney victory in Florida might well place Gingrich on the shelf with Rick Perry; crossing his fingers for a Vice Presidential bid. Santorum will run onward, but seems unlikely to visit the winner’s circle again after his did-he-or-didn’t-he win in Iowa. And Paul must wait — perhaps for a brokered convention in Tampa, Fla.

Obama’s tenure has been — to put it gently — an unmitigated disaster. In 2010, America called out for meaningful change, not the bumper-sticker babble that carried Obama to victory in 2008. Should the Republicans force the electorate to choose between the lesser of two evils in 2012, perhaps defeat is what they deserve.

Newsweek And The Infinite Monkey Theorem

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey given enough time at a keyboard can randomly produce the work of William Shakespeare. The logical basis for the theorem is mathematically sound: infinite opportunity makes the infinitesimally unlikely likely, even eventually assured. Some of the giants of human thought subscribe to the theorem.

Obviously, none of the icons of intellect ever picked up a copy of the liberal glossy Newsweek, nor read the pseudo-intellectual drivel of Andrew Sullivan. Had any of them happened upon the writings of the bastard progeny of Sidney Harman and Tina Brown, the infinite monkey theorem would have been called the infinite liberal theorem: Give a monkey enough time at a keyboard and whatever it produces will be closer to the work of the Bard than anything Newsweek might excrete — and that’s before the monkey stops throwing feces and starts typing.

Case in point: this week’s edition of Newsweek. The cover features one of those ubiquitous hero-angle photos of President Barack Obama, presumably feigning gravitas. Emblazoned on the cover is: “Why are Obama’s Critics so Dumb? Andrew Sullivan on the man with a plan.” The accompanying piece stretches across a few pages of what might have become a nice roll of toilet paper and offers nothing more than another lusty love letter to Obama from a liberal propagandist masquerading as a journalist.

Sullivan, an admitted “unabashed supporter” of all things Obama, earns his pom-poms. He writes: “Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb.” Sullivan calls those who recognize Obama as a corrupt, reprobate disgrace “unhinged.” He refers to those who expect Obama to adhere to stringently liberal standards as “purists.” In fact, the concept of conservatives displaying “an apocalyptic fervor” whereas liberals are merely “disappointed” is a theme to which Sullivan returns throughout the piece.

Of course, Sullivan negates his own credibility by dubbing himself a “conservative-minded independent.” If you’re confused by the idea of someone who subscribes to the appalling, liberal-perpetrated “Trig Truther” slander (in which Democrats question the parentage of Sarah Palin’s child) referring to himself as a “conservative-minded” anything, welcome to the club.

The rest of the piece contains the same prosaic pattern of pabulum consistently proffered by smug liberal pinheads. Sullivan refers to the un-Constitutional behemoth Obamacare as “moderate.” (Granted, from the perspective of an über-liberal lightweight like Sullivan, it may well be.) He also manages to put a happy face on the financial bloodbath of the government and union thug takeover of General Motors: “The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful.” Never mind the multibillion-dollar losses which will be borne by the taxpayers in return for malfunctioning glorified go-carts. He throws in a few more howlers, for example: “Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court.”  (That’s from a perspective just to the left of Santa Monica, Calif.) He even cites the website as backup, which is a bit like suggesting that Bill Maher is funny because Rosie O’Donnell says so.

In splattering Newsweek’s pages with babble that reads like it was lifted from Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s diary, Sullivan somehow managed to miss Obama’s horrendous record on immigration, Operation Fast and Furious, Solyndra, LightSquared, Richard Cordray and the rest of the legion failures and scandals which are the real mileposts of Obama’s regrettable regime. Indeed, Sullivan even gives Obama’s signing of the criminal National Defense Authorization Act (breaking a campaign promise) a pass, suggesting that ending the mythical “torture” which he evidently believes regularly occurs in “military detention and military justice” is worth the trade.

Newsweek’s liberal bias is well-documented, as even former editor-at-large Evan Thomas has acknowledged. And Sullivan himself had no credibility to sacrifice; once you’ve bought into the “Trig truther” movement, you’ve sold your soul. What should raise eyebrows isn’t Newsweek toeing the Democrat line. What should raise eyebrows is the fact that mouthpieces like Newsweek, Sullivan and their ilk speak for a party and President who show such scorn for the rest of us.

The infinite monkey theorem suggests given enough time, a monkey could write the complete works of Shakespeare. I’m not sure how much time Newsweek and Sullivan would need to produce something praiseworthy. Someone call the monkey. I think we’ve found a task he can handle.


Given the endless series of crimes committed by President Barack Obama and his merry band of accomplices, it’s hard to imagine why the liberal elite have their panties in a knot over a video of a few Marines answering nature’s call while standing above the corpses of the latest Islamofascists to run headlong into the outstretched fist of the U.S. Military like so many bugs on a proverbial windshield.

Even a casual glance at the video reveals that the Marines lowered the population in the “wants to kill everyone who thinks women shouldn’t be forced to dress like beekeepers” demographic. The rest of the planet subsequently enjoys the removal of said homicidal vermin. And the terrorists get to be martyrs. Thanks to the Marines, everyone is a winner.

But someone isn’t happy. According to the usual liberal suspects, what the Marines in the video did was unconscionable. The Globe And Mail called the incident an “atrocity,” although it omitted the fact that the Taliban are dedicated to visiting atrocities to every human being on the planet who doesn’t share their twisted ideology. On the liberal Democratic hate-speech site, one of the bobbleheaded “diarists” called the Marines “absolute barbarians” and suggested urinating on dead Islamofascist terrorists “dehumanizes the enemy and turns them into monsters.” Sure, because up until Urinegate, the Taliban were the moral equivalent nursery school teachers with AK-47s.

Lest we forget, none other than the lord of the Dailykos manor — and prominent Democratic cheerleader — Marcos Moulitsas reacted to the Islamofascist murder, dismemberment, burning and hanging from a bridge of Americans by saying of the victims: “Screw them.” Meanwhile, the redoubtably liberal Daily Beast offered the “Taliban-on-the-street” perspective from “Taliban fighter” (but not “Taliban terrorist”) Jan Mohammad Khan: “These Americans have crossed the borders of civilization and humanity by disrespecting the dead.” Allah forbid the Marines offend the delicate sensibilities of someone who considers “honor killings” an admirable practice. Furthermore, just how much consideration should we offer to the same terrorists who duped an 8-year-old girl into becoming an unintentional suicide bomber?

The same liberals who shouted their support of Obama from the highest rooftops following the execution of the Taliban’s big buddy Osama bin Laden have decided “desecrating” the dead bodies of Islamofascists is despicable. I must admit that I don’t envy the liberals, who live in a world where the choices range between dichotomy and duplicity. Their outrage seems even more out of place when one considers the fact that even the Taliban appear not to share their perspective. Taliban spokes-terrorist Zabihullah Mujahid said: “The video will not harm our talks.”

Urinegate is hardly an unconscionable atrocity. Murdering, burning, dismembering and displaying the corpses of victims is an unconscionable atrocity. Beheading a civilian on camera is an unconscionable atrocity. Flying planes filled with civilians, including children, into buildings filled with civilians, including children, is an unconscionable atrocity. The only truly unconscionable aspect of Urinegate is the recording of the battlefield bladder-clearing. In the YouTube era, doing a Cecil B. DeMille when the critics include the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is just plain — pardon the pun — piss-poor performing. Far be it for me to suggest the Marine Corps train the boots at Parris Island to avoid actions which might engender noisy and noisome whining from the same crowd which considers “Hanoi Jane” Fonda a hero.

Additionally, the Marines’ actions draw the worst kind of attention from an Administration that happily assumes credit for military successes, but otherwise plans to send as many servicemembers as possible to the already overlong unemployment lines.

For those of you who remain unconvinced, consider this: I wouldn’t urinate on an Islamofascist if he were on fire. The Marines will. The hell with the courts-martial; give these guys the Nobel Peace Prize.

–Ben Crystal

The Path To Destruction

On Tuesday morning, President Obama signaled that more of his “change we can believe in” was approaching from south of the border. He promoted Cecilia Muñoz, a former lobbyist for the racist hate group National Council of La Raza, to the position of Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

The National Council of La Raza (which translates from the Spanish as the goose step-ish “The Race”) is part of a confederation of Hispanics-first mobs which also includes the openly racist M.E.Ch.A (Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán) and La Raza Unida. All have uttered the even more goose step-ish phrase “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada” which translates from the Spanish as “For The Race everything, nothing out of the race.” It’s enough to make you wonder if the director of the La Raza marketing department is named something like Pedro Goebbels. Among the other stated goals of some of this crowd: the annexation by Mexico of sections of the American Southwest to Mexico. All right, but we get to keep Scottsdale, Ariz. And you get to evict the Marines at Camp Pendleton.

It might not seem all that shocking for a Democratic Party as clearly disinterested in any hindrances to their hegemony to offer a West Wing warrant to someone whose allegiances are at best a bit — ahem — caliente regarding sensible immigration policy. Nonetheless, the elevation of Muñoz is as loud a trumpet blast from Obama to the millions of illegal aliens that the traffic light at the border may soon change from yellow to green.

Cognizant of the fact that his tenure so far has barely cracked the window on failure, Obama is likely considering tapping a vast new reservoir of voting fuel. As in most instances involving the Democrats and their voter outreach programs, the law suffers. While groups like Muñoz’s former employers at La Raza might not be engaged in criminal conduct as brazen as the vermin at ACORN, there can be no doubt that their intentions are widely — and wildly — divergent from those held by those of us who recognize that illegal aliens do not arrive in spaceships.

The usual retinue of reprobates cheered Obama’s decision to elevate Muñoz to the DPC directorship. The pro-amnesty National Immigration Forum crowed: “With this move, the pressure is on the president to move forward with an aggressive domestic (immigration) policy agenda.” House Minority Leader and whitebread multimillionaire Nancy Pelosi boasted that Muñoz:

…has developed strong relationships with members of Congress in Washington and activists nationwide, and a sterling reputation as a powerful voice on behalf of comprehensive, compassionate immigration reform.

Hang on there, Nancy. Members of Congress and activists? What about hard-working taxpayers and law-abiding citizens? Or, as you probably call them: “the enemy?” Is Obama not interested in hiring a senior adviser who considers the good of the Nation above the good of a small, but vocal conglomeration of people whose very nature runs contrary thereto?

The appointment of Muñoz to the top post among Obama’s domestic advisers should surprise no one. This is the same President who was so aggrieved by Arizona’s refusal to throw open the gates that he tattled on them to his mommies at the United Nations, the same President who just forestalled the deportations of nearly a quarter of a million illegal aliens, the same President whose approval ratings — even among Hispanics — have lately suffered from a touch of Montezuma’s Revenge. What better response than to grant senior status to a woman who believes in a reformed “path to citizenship?” (What was wrong with the old “path to citizenship,” which didn’t require a swim across the Rio Grande or a hands-and-knees crawl through a tunnel beneath San Ysidro?)

What cost will we bear? If Obama finds a way to grant ballots to an indeterminate number of illegal aliens (estimated to be between 10 million and 30 million), he might tip the electoral edge to the Democrats; but somewhere down the road, he’ll end up next to the rest of us in line to cross the border to Canada.

Barack Obama And The Imperial Presidency

I tend to avoid reading the tea leaves fluttering in Washington as predictive of some burgeoning conspiracy birthed in the bowels of the Barack Obama White House. Before you scoff, let me clarify: I have no doubt that Obama daydreams about appointing himself an eleventy-star generalissimo, wearing a garish uniform he found on Tinpots-R-Us (jodhpurs with those ears would make him look like a violin in a Salvador Dali painting) and assigning himself a title which would make Idi Amin blush. But the dream and the reality of imposing a dictatorship on the United States live a far cry from one another. All the same; just because it won’t succeed doesn’t mean Obama isn’t going to try.

Witness Obama and the Democrats’ latest ploy. Last week, Obama decided he was tired of hassling with that pesky, Constitutionally-mandated separation of powers and appointed Richard Cordray to the position of director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—itself one of those Constitutionally-nebulous “czar” positions which have sprung up during the Obama Administration like fungus in a fleabaggers’ squatter camp. Although the Senate was—and IS—in session, Obama and his accomplices recognized his minions—including the sycophant corporate media—would blindly march to whatever beat Obama drummed up. Armed with that understanding of liberals’ willingness to forgive any offense committed by their dear leaders, Obama bypassed the Senate and “recess appointed” Cordray to the post.

Patriots, stunned by the brazen nature of Obama’s latest crime, howled derision and outrage. Obama not only overstepped the bounds of executive authority, he spat in the face of precedent, violated the terms of the Dodd-Frank bureaucratic monstrosity which created the position in question (which requires Senate confirmation of the office holder) and ignored the opinion of his own Department of Justice. Try to imagine how deep down the rabbit hole Obama fell in order to offend Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder’s Constitutional sensibilities.

The left fired back with predictable unanimity. Obama led with ludicrous assertions that Congressional (Senatorial) intransigence imbued him with hitherto unknown super-Presidential powers; specifically the right to bypass Congress when the mood suits him:

“…I have an obligation as president to do what I can without (Congress).”

Is that how that works? If Congress stands up to a President whose increasingly unhinged decisions fly in the face of precedent, logic and law, then the President may determine if their session isn’t “session-y” enough; and issue edicts by fiat while liberals far and wide cheer his naked power grab.

Meanwhile, noticeably silent on the matter was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who endorsed pro-forma tactics when the Democrats used them against President Bush in 2008:

“We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous… there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma…”

Reid, who I suspect was left in the dark about Obama’s nefarious strategy until after the fact, issued a halfhearted endorsement of the wannabe-dictator’s latest offense; claiming to “support President Obama’s decision…” without making any reference to the Constitution. Of course, the corporate media horde carefully omitted any references to Reid and the Senate Democrats’ own employment of pro forma sessions to block Bush nominees.

In recent months, the President has signed the abominable National Defense Authorization Act; which—among other things—empowers the government to stuff you somewhere really remote (I’m thinking the vegetable drawer in Michael Moore’s fridge) until the 12th of Never without so much as a parting gift. He has been as forthcoming as a Gambino button man on the subject of Operation Fast and Furious. His cronies have benefited while working Americans suffered through fiscal disasters like Solyndra, Lightsquared, General Electric’s new Chinese-employment-at-the-expense-of-40,000-American-workers program and pretty much everything which has sputtered off a General Motors, Fisker or Fiat/Chrysler assembly line (and directly into the shop).

Successful businesses like Gibson Guitars face interminable battles with Federal authorities which reek of political gamesmanship. The so-called “Occupiers”—who can’t be more than one or two felony convictions from out-thugging the labor unions—are mutating into a liberal brute squad. The dovish candidate Obama has blossomed into a saber-rattler, Nobel be damned. And then the President announced last week that he gets to make up the rules as he goes along.

It’s time for Obama to face demotion. Don’t expect the Democrats to help; they’re just following orders.

And They’re Off!

Conservatives have a tough road to plow. Unlike their liberal counterparts, the conservative movement allows independent thought and expression. Thus, conservatives engage in much more protracted disagreements over direction and outcome than the noisy-yet-ideologically-monotonous liberals. Of course, the Democrats may bicker, fight and even threaten each other over personality, but there is little ideological heterogeneity in the Democratic ranks. Those who stray are either marginalized or simply ejected. Ask Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman or about six dozen former associates of the Clintons. Actually, ask Miller or Liebermann; those Clinton associates seem to have… er… gone missing. (They said they were going to take a quick stroll through Fort Marcy Park. I’m sure they’re completely safe.)

Conservatism not only allows but encourages everyone to blaze — or in the case of liberals, refuse to blaze — their own trails to political enlightenment. Because of that, the race to the Republican Presidential nomination has been much deeper and more spirited than the 2008 Democratic race. Of course, the Democratic contenders four years ago offered all the philosophical diversity of the Women’s Studies Department at Berkeley — although one (Congressman Dennis Kucinich) set himself apart from the pack by boasting of his experience with space aliens.

“Close Encounters of the Liberal Kind” aside, it’s worth noting that Mitt Romney eked out an Iowa victory by eight votes — give or take a hanging chad or two — over former Senator Rick Santorum. Therein, however, lies the proverbial rub. Because conservatives are such a variegated lot, the possibility looms that some of the candidates (here’s looking at you, Newt Gingrich) will extend their campaigns or even step out to third-party status. Such long-term division would create a split movement, hike expenses into the stratosphere and allow the billionaire- and Wall Street-funded Barack Obama machine to further coordinate the game plan (and sweep more than a few scandals under the rug).

As of Wednesday morning, the caucus goers/voters of Iowa have pulled the curtain on the first marquee performance of the 2012 floor show. Romney is carrying the lead fan, with Santorum and Congressman Ron Paul close behind him. Romney’s homeboy status in New Hampshire (he governed neighboring Massachusetts and is a part-time resident of Wolfeboro, N.H.) indicates a Granite State smackdown by Romney, raising the very real possibility that he will run the table to the nomination.

While such an outcome is far from ideal for true conservatives and Constitutionalists, it remains not only possible, but likely. Of course, the big question is hardly settled. In 2008, Iowa was no bellwether, with Mike Huckabee taking top honors in front of none other than Romney. In fact, the eventual nominee — Senator John McCain — finished fourth, behind even Fred Thompson, who campaigned with all the vigor of an OWS protester on bath day. Romney may be the clear favorite, but Santorum and Paul show no signs of slowing down. In fact, the Democrats have deployed their corporate media in an all-out assault, including liberal sock puppet Alan Colmes’ shockingly Bill Maher-esque mockery of Santorum’s tragic loss of a child. Gingrich’s fortunes have waned of late, but he’s still the front-runner in South Carolina and Florida. Texas Governor Rick Perry remains in the mix. Lest I forget, Jon Huntsman is still pretending to be a Republican. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann suspended her campaign.

We must ask ourselves what we’re prepared to sacrifice in the coming weeks and months. We must face the fact that our preferred candidate (whoever that might be) may be jockeying for the U.S. Naval Observatory. If Romney grabs the brass ring, are conservatives willing to forgive his myriad flaws to oust Obama and his increasingly brazen accomplices? Even if we do, do we believe we can heal the party’s leftward limp? Or do we peel away from our flagging centrist brethren to build a new party structure, knowing that in doing so, we might be guaranteeing another four years of Obama’s profligate cronyism?

The hard questions race toward us. Conservatives must make hard choices in 2012. At least we still can.

–Ben Crystal

The Worst-Case Scenario

Last week, my esteemed colleague John Myers donned his swami hat and peered into the future in his piece “2012: The Year of Living Dangerously.” As I perused his prognostications, one in particular caught my eye: “Expect us to have to endure another four years with Barack Obama as President.”

I even reread the line to make sure I didn’t suffer from some sort of temporary dyslexia. Not that I find Myers’ predictions even slightly dubious — after all, he sports a pretty unblemished record. Recoiling in horror at the very prospect, I poured myself three fingers (instead of my usual two and a half-ish) of Matthew Gloag and Son’s® finest blend and soldiered on.

Not long after, I ventured upon a singular omen spewed forth by Robert Reich, the diminutive Labor Secretary during the Administration of President Bill Clinton, Obama transition adviser and Democratic Party troll-about-town. Reich, who has kept busy since the end of Bubba’s salad days with such noteworthy gigs as chairman of the racist liberal hate group Common Cause, offered this potential Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue: “Get Ready For A (sic) Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket.” The vertically challenged Reich even laid out the grammatically challenged particulars:

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap places. Biden becomes Secretary of State — a position he’s apparently coveted for years. And Hillary Clinton, Vice President.

While the idea of trading Vice President Biden to the State Department for the current Secretary of State and former “co-President” might seem far-fetched, consider this: Hillary Clinton has lived for the Oval Office since the day she packed up the Rose Law Firm records and headed for the Senate. In fact, one can make a credible case that she’s been training for the executive event since the moment she said “might as well” to whichever minister married her to Bill.

Although Reich claims “no inside information,” he is hardly some casual outside observer reading tea leaves and guessing at their political meaning. He’s a true believer; a “heart and soul of liberalism” type — and a potential Cabinet nominee should Hillary Clinton ever squeeze into the chair behind the Resolute Desk. I doubt he gazed into the crystal ball without some prompting.

Thursday morning, I broached the specter of an Obama/Clinton 2012 ticket to a learned friend of mine. He scoffed at the idea, saying: “Hillary Clinton will never buy into playing second fiddle to that overblown moron.” Actually, he used saltier language, but his point was hard to miss. I pressed him to imagine a person who is so consumed by ambition that she’d willingly follow a doughy-faced lawyer with a fetish for fat girls from Arkansas to Washington, D.C., and back. Imagine a person so self-important that she gave birth to the original version of Obamacare (remember Hillarycare?) in the unelected office of the First Lady. Imagine a person who actually thinks opposition to her bizarre — and illegal — attempts to assign herself authority in a chiefly ceremonial office was a “vast right wing conspiracy.” Imagine a person who ran for the Presidency in 2008 in a campaign which once hinted at the possibility that her challenger might not survive an entire term, but then accepted a Cabinet post in his Administration? What wouldn’t such a person do to boost her chances?

Of course, like all things involving liberal ambitions, potential pitfalls exist. I documented in my recent piece “Oh no, poor Joe!” that Biden is an absolute buffoon. Allowing him to become the Nation’s chief diplomat to the world would be as foolish as allowing Bill Maher to talk to Girl Scouts without adult supervision. And while Hillary Clinton might not harm Obama’s re-election hopes, her naked ambition and smug hostility makes her one of the more polarizing figures in Washington. She hardly drags any fence-sitters into his yard.

Nonetheless, if Myers is right — and I dearly hope he missed the mark this time — Obama is poised to occupy the Oval Office through 2016. If Reich is right — and I fervently hope he’s as close to the truth as sworn testimony offered by Eric Holder — Hillary Clinton will have the pole position for the following four years.

Myers called 2012 “the year of living dangerously.” The prospect of an Obama/Clinton two-headed monster makes “dangerously” as much an understatement as “Robert Reich is mildly undersized” or “Eric Holder fibs.” Note to Myers: if you and Reich are both correct, I’m crashing on your couch next November.

–Ben Crystal

2011 Was A Rocky Year

It is always a bit of a stretch to gaze back across the preceding 12 months and rank the “top” news stories of the year. In our increasingly interconnected global community, events unfold at such a rate that it’s virtually impossible to select any number of news stories and proclaim the definitive list of anything. Nonetheless, I present to you my list of the top news stories of 2011. I selected some because they’re legitimately noteworthy, some because they shouldn’t have been. Indubitably, some of you will disagree with either my choices or my assessment thereof. You are, of course, welcome to do so; despite the best efforts of the left, suspension of the 1st Amendment was not among the news items this year.

Offered in somewhat chronological order:

Operation Fast And Furious. Attorney General — and New Black Panther Party patron — Eric Holder didn’t know a thing about the multimillion dollar operation that deliberately armed Mexican narcoterrorists who subsequently employed Holder’s largesse to murder hundreds of their own countrymen and at least two American law enforcement personnel. At least, he says he didn’t. Granted, the preponderance of actual evidence says differently, but Holder also says anyone who notices the discrepancy is racist. Something tells me Holder accuses the paperboy of racism every time The Washington Post ends up in the hedge.

The Attempted Assassination Of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. We’re used to watching liberals politicize tragedy — especially tragedies involving firearms — before the proverbial smoke has cleared. Giffords survived; although in doing so, she denied the Democrats the opportunity to claim her as a martyr for their twisted cause. Jared Lee Loughner — who is nearly as disturbed as Ed Schultz — went on a homicidal rampage, and somehow the Democrats managed to blame conservatives. Following the attack, President Barack Obama called for a return to civility in American politics. The “new civility” lasted almost through the commercial break which followed Obama’s speech. Then Common Cause called for the lynchings of Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Michael Malloy demanded Seal Team 6 assassinate President George W. Bush and top union thug Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said about the Tea Party: “Let’s take these sons of bitches out!” And let’s not forget the entire Democratic Party’s smearing of the Tea Party as “terrorists” and “American Taliban.” By the way, Giffords is on the road to a near-miraculous recovery — not that you’d know it from the corporate media outlets.

The Fukushima Earthquake And Tsunami. As it turns out, immensely powerful natural disasters are bad. Despite our best technological, societal and moral advancements (or lack thereof), when Mother Nature drops the hammer, all we can do is try to survive. Much like during Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of New Orleans, man was as tiny and helpless in the face of nature’s wrath as ever. Much like Katrina’s aftermath, the left tried mightily to draw a logical vertex between an unstoppable force of nature and something they dislike. In the case of Katrina, the target of their irrational explanation was white Republicans. In the case of Fukushima, their target was nuclear power (and white Republicans). In both cases, liberals connected the “global warming” hoax to actual events. Japan has been busy rebuilding itself since the disaster, albeit without post-Katrina fanfare. Hardworking Japanese folks earnestly piecing back together their lives without complaining about free Visa cards or looting the Wal-Mart doesn’t make for liberal-friendly copy.

The Arab Spring. Admit it: When Tunisia fell, you briefly hoped that the Arab Spring would deliver non-burka freedom to the Mideast. Sadly, the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood is poised to spread across North Africa like a metastasizing tumor. Even Morocco, which normally provides Americans with the chance to say “I’ve been to Africa” without braving the “shootier” parts of the Dark Continent, is facing internal swelling. The corporate media are fond of drawing parallels between the so-called “Occupiers” and the Arab Spring forces. Consider how much fun the fleabaggers would be with the addition of lunatic religious fervor.

The Royal Wedding. Maybe I lack a romantic soul, but I thought the marriage of Will and… Kate (I had to check) was the biggest non-event since the last time two overbred, under-important people tied the knot. The real story is less about the merger of the Windsor and Middleton families and more about where to get the best odds on the over-under for how long these two will stay married before he cheats on her with a distant cousin and she cheats on him with some cat named Akbar. I did notice that the female guests’ headgear screamed “shallow gene pool.”

The Execution Of Osama Bin Laden. OK, Democrats: good for Obama. I would have thought the elimination of the world’s most wanted terrorist was good for everyone; but when Democrats are involved, electoral politics trump humanity. Obama and the liberals — who despised President George W. Bush for “cowboy” diplomacy — decided to try on W’s spurs. Meanwhile, Obama employed the specter of terrorism to keep the doors open at Guantanamo Bay; simultaneously breaking a campaign promise and delivering the message that pretty much anyone on his enemies’ list could win an all-expenses paid trip to sunny Cuba.

The Trial Of Casey Anthony. This circus sideshow came within a white Bronco and Al Cowlings from being tagged “The O.J. Trial II: This Time, the Murderer is White.” Casey ended up walking on the murder charge and was instead convicted of lying to police; it was the legal version of watching Lawrence O’Donnell bloviate and only making fun of his tie. Her own lawyer called her a “lying slut.” Far be it for me to argue, counselor. Anthony’s current job prospects include an offer to star in a porn flick. It’s not lethal injection, but odds are she’ll handle that herself.

The OWS Uprising. Following the Democrats’ deployment of the union thugs to jack-boot the people of Wisconsin, we probably should have seen this coming. Initially, pushed by the Soros-backed liberal hate group “Adbusters,” the fleabaggers — who apparently want more government (except for soldiers and police officers) — managed to compile quite a resume in a short time. Fleabag squats hosted murders, rapes, assaults, theft, child molestation and enough drug busts to make the Woodstock survivors wince. The OWS protesters are essentially the same as every other group of liberal idiots. The Democrat elite has managed to convince a relatively small group of people that they represent a much larger group of people, and then encouraged them to do everything possible to complicate the lives of the real majority. In fact, they have demonstrated tremendous drive. Imagine if they displayed that kind of determination to bathe, go to work and/or move out of their parents’ basements.

The Assassination Of Moammar Gadhafi. When Gadhafi refused to tap out, Obama had him whacked. Of course, Obama didn’t have anything to do with it, except when Bill Maher is pretending Obama is “President Badass.” What a victory for our Nobel Peace Prize winner! No more sovereignty-violating, nation-building, irresponsible wars, right? When Obama assumed office, American military personnel were engaged in two shooting conflicts. As of the dawn of 2012, American military personnel are directly engaged in at least three; and Iran and North Korea are piling sandbags.

Campaign 2012. In your heart of hearts, you know this is as much fun as the roller coaster ride at Six Flags. First, Herman Cain made the mistake of peaking too early, leaving him vulnerable to a liberal media lynching. Rick Santorum is probably the most redoubtably paleoconservative of the GOP contenders, but he holds the same chance of victory as a burrito does of escaping Michelle Obama’s plate uneaten. Ron Paul has managed to hover around the lead without more than a passing nod from the corporate media, although the faked “he walked out on Gloria Borger” stories indicate growing fear from the Democrats. With some of his fellow Republican candidates taking shots at him, Paul is taking shots from the left and the slightly less left. I’m not certain what galls me more: the fact that nearly everyone running for President displays clownish tendencies or the fact that each of them is better qualified than the buffoon currently squatting in the White House.

Of course, a list of the top news stories in any given year will omit stories many consider momentous in the extreme. The unemployment rate continues to hover between “horrendous” and “Carter era.” People were assaulted. Some were murdered. Others were raped. Children were molested and otherwise abused. Valuables were stolen. Some of the aforementioned crimes even took place outside OWS rallies and/or Anthony Weiner’s imagination. Al Sharpton was allowed a television show, and Rachel Maddow was allowed to keep hers. Alec Baldwin’s “man of the people” act came to an abrupt halt somewhere between hawking high-interest credit cards and forgetting he isn’t the only airline passenger on Earth. And I’m fairly certain a pop star or two lip-synched their final hits.

Happy New Year, everyone! Here’s hoping we live through the next one.

–Ben Crystal

The Blind Archer

From time to time, liberals manage to stumble onto the proper course of action; although their discoveries routinely fall into the “fire enough arrows and you’ll eventually hit a tree” department. Witness Federal Judge John Bates’ decision to turn back a challenge to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires Department of Justice “preclearance” before any changes can be made to “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” in any “covered jurisdiction.” That means no one in any place dominated by the Democrats back in 1965 can update or modernize their voting regulations without a note from the guys who work for Eric Holder. The challenge was brought to the court as a result of the decision by the Department of Justice to reject a plan by the city of Kinston, N.C., to eliminate party affiliation from their ballots. When the people of Kinston agreed to force voters to learn something substantive about office-seekers, the Justice Department disallowed their plan, suggesting racism was a factor: “The elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.”

The Justice Department was hardly alone in offering protection to our evidently hapless and helpless African-American brethren. The American Civil Liberties Union — on behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — predictably raced in to oppose the Kinston nonpartisan ballot referendum. A far-left group that pushes a super-liberal agenda through activist courts uniting with a racist hate group is raised-eyebrow-worthy on its own. The same pair colluding over electoral politics should set off any alarm in range. In the case of the Kinston measure, the liberals have accidentally granted us a glimpse of their real beliefs while doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

At best, the ACLU, NAACP and the bureaucrats who denied the people of Kinston’s right to hold free and fair elections are suggesting that black people are uninformed, ignorant rubes whose minds — and, thus, votes — are as easily corralled as slow-witted bovines. At worst, they’re suggesting black people are literally subnormal; so stupid that they will freeze like headlight-stunned deer if confronted with a ballot that doesn’t identify the contenders with simple, one-letter labels. Either way, the fact that liberals think either one or the other reveals the essential racist elitism that lies at the core of their darkened hearts.

In the interest of full disclosure, I despise non-partisan elections, mostly because I think candidates ought to have to wear their party affiliation like electoral Hester Prynnes. I’m also well aware that simply examining party affiliation is no substitute for actually gathering worthwhile information about those who hope to serve me in a political capacity. Furthermore, I possess limited respect for ignorant voters who rely exclusively on the letter next to the candidates’ names to determine which chad they’re going to hang on the ballot. Beyond knowing that “D” stands for “Don’t vote for this clown, Dummy,” party affiliation is hardly the total tale of the tape when it comes to determining whether an aspiring officeholder has earned your vote. And the Act’s Section 5 not only has outlived its usefulness, but it has deformed into a tool with which the Federal Government and the nanny-staters are actively intimidating Americans. No one in Kinston was suggesting a return to the poll taxes or literacy tests of the Jim Crow era. There are no restrictions on non-felonious citizens casting their ballots. In some Democrat-leaning locales, even the felons and the deceased can vote — twice.

It is worth noting that Bates was appointed to the Federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush, a jarring reminder that there is no shortage of Republicans for whom I would be more hard-pressed to pull the proverbial lever than most of the bottom-feeders masquerading as Democrats these days. But it’s my responsibility to know whether anyone deserves my vote. God save me if I ever become so disconnected from civic awareness that I require a “D” or an “R” to shepherd me through the voting process. And, if any confederacy of hate groups, bureaucrats and lawyers ever mistakes me for someone who does, God save them.

–Ben Crystal

Oh No, Poor Joe!

In 1988, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush campaigned to succeed his boss, President Ronald Reagan, in the big chair down the hall. Although Bush was facing the difficult task of filling some of the largest shoes ever to tread the carpet in the Oval Office, the Democrats responded with the very mere Michael Dukakis, the Lilliputian liberal Governor of Massachussetts.

Despite the presence of Dukakis’ somewhat less ridiculous running mate, Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, it became abundantly clear early on that Dukakis could offer little more than enough of a campaign to convince the Democrats to nominate him over an extraordinarily weak field.

Given the massive shortcomings of their ticket, the Democrats chose to try to convince voters that Bush’s running mate — Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana — was too stupid to leave alone in the Naval Observatory, much less the Oval Office. Fortunately, Quayle played into their hands with a series of miscues which were embarrassing enough to give the electorate pause, however brief. As the election approached, Dukakis continued to come up short in nearly every category, prompting The Chicago Tribune to suggest they try the old Herbert Humphrey ’68 tactic of scaring the voters with the spectre of an unprepared Vice President: “The Democrats have been running against George Bush and Ronald Reagan. They ought to be running against Dan Quayle.” So, Dukakis tried the Humphrey suit on for size:

If (then-Vice President Bush) truly believes that Dan Quayle is qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency, how can we trust his judgment when America`s future is on the line?

But Dukakis simply didn’t rise to the Presidential challenge, and returned to his Bay State bog.

Meanwhile, one of his erstwhile primary challengers returned to his Senate office. Senator Joe Biden kept a high enough profile to return to the Presidential arena in 2008, this time as the theoretical Bentsen to Barack Obama’s Dukakis. And the Democrats forgot all about their effort to terrify voters into voting based on the cardiac proximity to the Presidency of a grossly underqualified — and, therefore, potentially dangerous — gaffe machine.

And what a gaffe machine Biden has turned out to be. Where Quayle’s spelling was as atrocious as President Obama’s geography, Biden appears incapable of leaving his office without tripping over his own tongue. Whether he’s:

  • Displaying nary a shred of racial prejudice: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…I’m not joking.”
  • Showing sensitivity to the handicapped by exhorting wheelchair-bound Missouri state Senator Chuck Graham to “Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see ya!”
  • Or proving himself to be a spelling bee rival to Quayle: “…a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”

Biden suffers from the sort of verbal diarrhea which makes opposition researchers feel all warm and fuzzy. However, none of his previous rhetorical missteps could have prepared us for last week’s gallop to goofy-town. Speaking to the liberal glossy Newsweek, Biden blurted out this blooper:

Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical…There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy.

Forget Dan Quayle; even former Vice President Walter Mondale would have raised an eyebrow at that blunder — and he played second fiddle to the guy who lost the Battle of the Chattahoochee Bunny. The idea that anyone allowed inside the West Wing would so casually dismiss a movement as evil and committed to destroying freedom (which would include U.S., Mr. Vice President) as the Taliban is slasher-movie scary. This is the man Barack Obama wants “one heartbeat away from the Presidency?” Even prominent Democrats have begun hinting at showing Biden the front door and welcoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the back.

To be fair, Obama’s own Presidential resume is weak enough to allow for a fight to the finish next fall. And in an Administration which includes Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and their ilk, Biden is far from the lone embarrassment on the roster. But if Obama chooses to keep a backup as appallingly underqualified as Biden on the ticket, then the GOP should absolutely — and fairly — question the competency of a President who would keep him that proverbial heartbeat from the Presidency.

–Ben Crystal